Gumbo My Wife Will Eat

Ages ago, I posted a gumbo recipe here, noting both that I'd gotten feedback from Louisianans over the course of creating it and that my wife, who is from New Orleans, does not like it.

Largely because of that last fact, I hadn't made it in at least a decade when my son asked me to come up with a gumbo recipe.

Before I go any further, let me thank my past guinea pigs for their diplomacy and apologize to them for making them guinea pigs in the first place: That might have been an okay soup, but the below is much closer to what one would find in a restaurant and, yes, my wife will eat it.

My thanks to Brandi Skibinski of The Country Cook for her recipe, which not only stands out for its superior flavor, but also for its explanations of some of the steps. I'm posting my slightly altered and stripped-down version below, but anyone making this should at least read through her recipe first, particularly regarding making roux and caramelizing the okra and andouille sausage.

The first time I made this, I made the roux, because I'd never done so. I am not ashamed to say I won't be doing that again, as the 45 minutes of constant whisking was for me more rite of passage as a chef than thing I want to spend my time doing -- on top of causing me to take three hours to make the recipe overall.

My son quipped that this is "good, but not 'three hours good'," after wolfing it down.

My main changes, aside from making the steps very easy to follow, are to substitute powdered roux, to add some chicken, and to provide for using less stock and fewer shrimp when one wants a smaller batch.

If you're not from Louisiana or thereabouts and your local grocer lacks such staples as powdered roux or andouille sausage, you can find them at Creole Foods of Lousiana.

***

Two Hour Gumbo

Preparation Time is 2 hours, using powdered roux.

Ingredients

butter, 1/2 stick
vegetable oil, 1/3 cup
powdered roux OR flour, 1/2 cup. (See Note 1.)
large onion, 1
green bell pepper, 1
celery, 2 stalks
minced garlic, 1 tbsp
fire roasted tomatoes, 14.5 oz can
seafood stock, 4 OR 6 cups
bay leaves, 2
black pepper, 1 tsp
salt, 1/2 tsp
Tony C's, 1 tbsp
okra, 8 pcs.
andouille or smoked sausage, 14 oz
crab boil, 1/2 tsp
shrimp, 1 OR 2 lbs (peeled, deveined and tails removed)
cooked chicken, 12 oz.
scallions, 2
rice, 1 cup

Directions

1. Mise en place: 2-cup measuring cup, pan for making roux (optional), pot and lid for rice, large pan for sausage and okra, large pot and lid for gumbo, the vegetables, the canned tomatoes and stock, the spices and crab boil, and the rice.

2. Dice vegetables except okra and scallions, and place in medium bowl.

3. Dice scallions and place in small bowl.

4. Place garlic in small bowl.

5. Place spices and salt in small bowl.

6. Chop sausage and place in large pan.

7. Chop okra and place in pan with sausage.

8. Add 2 tbsp oil to sausage pan.

9. Melt together butter and vegetable oil in a pan or gumbo pot over medium-low heat.

10. EITHER make roux per Note 1 and transfer to gumbo pot OR whisk powdered roux into butter-oil mixture in gumbo pot.

11. In parallel with the next 3 steps, turn sausage pan heat to medium and cook for 15 minutes, stirring occasionally. Sausage and okra will partly caramelize.

12. Add chopped vegetables to roux in gumbo pot and cook, stirring occasionally, for 10 minutes.

13. Add garlic to gumbo pot, mix and cook for 2 minutes.

14. Add fire-roasted tomatoes, spices, chicken, and 2 OR 3 cups seafood stock to gumbo pot, stir, and simmer, covered.

15. Add 2 OR 3 cups seafood stock to pan, scraping the bottom and stirring well.

16. Add contents of pan to gumbo pot and combine.

17. In parallel with the next 3 steps, bring gumbo pot to boil, then simmer, covered for 45 minutes, stirring occasionally.

18. Place shrimp and crab boil in sealable container, and shake to coat shrimp.

19. Place shrimp in refrigerator.

20. Prepare rice.

21. Add shrimp to gumbo, stir, and cook 10 minutes.

22. Add scallions and remove bay leaves.

23. Serve over rice.

Notes

1. To make roux: (1) Melt 1/2 stick of butter and 1/4 cup vegetable oil in pan. (2) Add 1/2 cup flour. (3) Whisk continuously over medium/low heat until the mixture turns a milk chocolate color. Note that this will take about 45 minutes.

-- CAV

DST: Use the Disruption, but Also the Resentment

At Fox News, Bill Korman, who spent 20 years in the U.S. Navy, explains why "I'm the only man in America who wants to keep daylight saving time." (DST)

While his attempt to defend the twice-yearly government-mandated resetting of clocks is thought-provoking and makes some interesting points, his selective focus on the good Korman realizes from DST conceals its bad and its ugly aspects.

Korman is correct that what he calls "controlled adversity" presents an opportunity:

There are 168 hours in every week. The time shift is the one moment each year when the entire country is prompted to re-examine how those hours are spent. It is, quite literally, a blank slate. Audit your mornings. Kill a bad habit. Add a workout. Reclaim an hour from doom-scrolling. Growth rarely happens in comfort, and comfort is exactly what routine provides.

Yes. Disruptions can prompt self-improvement, although Korman undersells the advantages routines offer when he implies that comfort is some kind of enemy of self-growth.

I strongly disagree: "comfort," or at least a degree of predictability is a necessity. (Complaisance is the enemy here.) Man, as a rational animal, plans ahead best when there is some degree of comfort and predictability. Indeed, as a fellow former naval officer, I would like to indicate that affording these to a society is the whole purpose of government.

Have fun planting crops, building a business, or making the next great breakthrough when you can't enforce contracts, criminals act freely, or foreign powers show up to enslave you or steal what you own. The courts, the police, and the military -- when restricted to their proper scope -- are good and necessary things. Ordering us around, no matter how small the matter, is outside that scope.

Before I finish my critique of the above, let me note that it is Korman's strongest point. His other points are that the time change is a symbolic boundary, and that it is, as a shared ritual, a unifying "agreement" for our society. (What about the changes of the seasons? What about fireworks on Independence Day? What about the Declaration of Independence?) Korman's other points might also sound good to many people, but they are the key to understanding the ugly of DST.

But before we do that, let's briefly remember the bad of DST, which I summarized some years ago in a RealClear Markets column:

"But the science --" you might say, as did I. Here, the Senate is only half-right. Switching does cause heart attacks, workplace injuries, and traffic fatalities.

But, according to a peer-reviewed 2020 position paper by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, permanent Standard Time is where we should land, because it's closer to our biological clocks. Over time, a mismatch can contribute to problems like obesity, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and depression. [bold added]

You say that's bad, but that sounds ugly to me, Gus! I can hear you saying.

What's ugly here is that these needless increases are caused by our government's immoral and impractical intrusion into our routines. Contra Korman, who asks us to regard DST as a "gift" and as "permission" to "step into a higher-output version of ourselves," let me counter that our government exists, not to shower us with "gifts," give us "permission" to do things, or regulate our "output," but to protect our freedom to to live our lives as we each, as individuals, judge best.

It is bad, but unavoidable that anyone has health issues or dies, but it is ugly for the government to not only fail to protect our freedom to do something about those things, but to abridge that freedom and cause more misfortune in the process.

That is a steep and unacceptable price to pay for the small advantages that this unnecessary intrusion presents even when viewed as an (easily-replaced) prompt, symbol, or ritual.

As an American, I find the notion of the government sculpting me to be patronizing and offensive on a personal level, and dangerous to the fabric of our country.

While I salute Korman's attempt to use this government-planned adversity as a cue to improve oneself, I say he doesn't go far enough on that score. The regular intrusion of clock-switching in our lives should, like the income tax, prompt us to work to reclaim our freedom from the nanny state, rather than meekly accept its Leviathan reach or, worse yet, perpetuate it.

-- CAV

Altruism vs. Serenity

At Ask a Manager, Alison Green fields the following question about some badly outdated advice: Why do people get so defensive over the concept of physically handing out resumes?

The person making the query witnessed a kid carrying around a stack of resumes and handing them out at a business plaza, likely at the urging of a clueless parent. Her ensuing conversation with a (younger!) coworker who saw the same spectacle went absolutely nowhere, and ended with a common type of complaint: [H]ow do I actually convince friends that this is a bad idea before they try it for themselves, if I even can?

As usual, Green gives a near-perfect reply:

As for how to convince friends it's a bad idea, you don't need to take it upon yourself to convince them! You can certainly share what you're learned and what your own experience has been -- and if the person seems skeptical or you're seeing them do things that are hurting their own chances you could send them a few links that might change their thinking -- but ultimately it's not really your job to change their thinking. Offer your perspective and talk about why you've come to it, but from there it's up to them. And really, life will set them straight eventually because if they try it, they're likely to see it doesn't work. I'm more concerned if it's someone giving that advice to impressionable others (like a career center telling students to do it), but that's a whole different issue. [bold added, links removed]

Although this post is about a mundane, fairly concrete issue, it contains a lesson applicable in spades to intellectual activism.

The desire to improve the culture by spreading better ideas makes sense, and not just to those of us who agree with Ayn Rand that history is ultimately driven by the kinds of ideas that dominate a culture -- or who simply want more rational people in our lives.

Likewise, the desire to simply help others do better in life isn't confined to having any sense of obligation to others. This person clearly wanted to help the kid out of good will, which is not, as many believe, the same thing as altruism.

It is easy to see the proper approach to trying to help others with Green's answer regarding this low-stakes issue: Do what you can, but know that past a certain point, it's up to them to understand, evaluate, and apply your advice, if they eventually accept it.

Past that point, one's efforts are a sacrifice of one's time, when it could be spent on better things. Interestingly, that is exactly what altruism demands of those who accept it. How many religious sects send people out to proselytize others? How many times have you met someone whose every conversation ends up being about some pet altruistic cause?

Even those of us who explicitly reject altruism will have to fight off its psychological remnants, which can manifest as an inability to let go of a lost cause like a person who thinks handing out paper resumes -- in the year 2026 -- is a great way to make a first impression.

I can't think of a better way to waste mental energy than by banging my head against such a wall, and that's because I did that a lot when I was younger. (Interestingly, discussions about evolution with a fundamentalist back when I was in college helped me understand this issue.)

Philosophy is, first and foremost, advice for how to live one's own life. And while, yes, it would be great if others in your life accepted a rational philosophy, you are missing the point if you spend too much time focused on making its case to their satisfaction. If people can be obtuse about small matters like this, they can and will be about bigger, more consequential things.

Don't be like them about them!

-- CAV

'Certificate of Need' Laws Challenged

From a John Stossel column comes good news: "Certificate of Need" laws -- cronyistic measures that restrict the supply of ambulances and hospital beds -- are now being challenged in a lawsuit by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

The lawsuit focuses on an ambulance company that wants to expand its service across a state line:

When they tried to expand into Kentucky, which is just a few minutes away from them, they learned it would be illegal.

It's illegal due to Certificate of Need laws, also called "CON" laws. In Kentucky and three other states, you have to get a Certificate of Need to run an ambulance service.

[Phillip] Truesdell doesn't think this is right.

He tells Stossel, "Anybody that draws breath ought to be allowed to work. Who gives the big man the right to say, 'You can't work here?'"

In addition to violating our right to contract, Certificate of Need laws worsened the impact of the Covid pandemic by exacerbating a hospital bed shortage and making it harder to address, to the point that many of the 34 states that had them on the books rolled them back.

Whatever the status of these laws post-pandemic, having them declared unconstitutional would be a good first step in making our medical sector better able to handle high demand in the future, not to mention making our government a better protector of our rights.

-- CAV

Cue Trump's de Minimis Refund Sh*tshow

Despite Trump slow-walking the refunds owed to the Americans who had to pay his illegal import taxes, legal clarity about getting refunds appears to be on the way, at least for those who were hit the hardest.

But what of the large number of individuals slammed by the taxes when Trump ended the de minimis exemption for items worth under $800.00?

Oddly enough, lots of them aren't happy, and they're not behaving like well-oiled wheels about it.

They want their money back.

Fortunately for most, major shippers who paid the tariffs before passing them on plan to repay them as soon as they have clarity on their own refunds from the government:

Natasha Amadi, a spokeswoman for United Parcel Service, said the company would support customers in obtaining refunds of IEEPA tariffs once a legal framework was established, adding that this applied to "customers of all sizes."

In a statement, Glennah Ivey-Walker, a spokeswoman for DHL, said that when there was legal guidance for the refund process, the company would "communicate with our customers and take appropriate actions." ...

This is fortunate for them, and good business for the shippers, but there is still plenty of chaos left to go around. Some shippers charged processing fees, which customers want returned along with the tariff loot. People who paid tariffs to overseas entities clearly won't have legal recourse.

Indicative of the confusion, the report discusses people who got screwed by tariffs at the retail level, even though the de minimis exemption has nothing to do with the vast majority of these people. That said, folks who had to pay higher prices at retailers might see lower prices, rather than refunds, if Costco is an indication. (As prices wouldn't show a tax component, this makes sense, but lots of people won't see it.)

And, predictably, class action lawsuits are about to start flying around.

Come November, don't forget that Trump and his party are all in for Round Two, even though they already know the new tariffs are also illegal, and the refund fight is just a small part of what they are putting us through.

-- CAV

Freedom Four

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. LTE RE: "Donald Trump, Pagan King", by Peter Schwartz (New York Times):

Leighton Woodhouse maintains that Judeo-Christian ethics are "the basis for the American Declaration of Independence." But the opposite is true.

180 words/1 minute

2. "Rights Are Just 'Words on a Page' if Federal Agents Can Ignore Them," by Agustina Vergara Cid (The Orange County Register):

"I'm a [U.S.] citizen, I'm just trying to get to work," [George Retes] said. [Attorney Marie] Miller says George even told the agents where his ID was inside the car. "No one seemed interested," she stated. "They didn't seem to disbelieve him. They just seemed to not care."

This seeming indifference from federal agents regarding the questionable legality of their purported actions -- not to mention their brutality -- should alarm every American.

900 words/3 minutes

3. "ICE Tyranny Is What Democracy Looks Like," by Benjamin Bayer (The Orange County Register):

"Remember: the Athenian democracy voted to put Socrates to death." -- Ben Bayer (Image via via Wikipedia, public domain.)

... The Founders gave us not a democracy, but a constitutional republic, a system premised on limiting government's function solely to protecting the individual's rights.

The laws Trump is enforcing are not "undemocratic." But they do violate constitutional rights. Even non-citizens have a right to liberty. Laws restricting immigrant labor violate the freedom to work and engage in trade. But these are freedoms Democrats long ago sold down the river when they sought ever-increasing regulations on the freedom of businessmen.

If Trump's ICE now assaults procedural rights like due process, it's because he like so many other Presidents have habituated action by executive order...

950 words/3 minutes

4. "'Man's Life' as the Standard of Value in the Ethics of Aristotle and Ayn Rand," by Gregory Salmieri (Book Chapter from Two Philosophers: Aristotle and Ayn Rand, edited by James G. Lennox and Gregory Salmieri):

In the first two sections of this [chapter], I elucidate the content of the human form of life as understood by Aristotle and Rand, respectively. In my third section, I show how the differences in their view of Man's Life reflect (and contribute to) different views of how a form of life can serve as an ethical standard. These differences, in turn, have implications for the extent to which their respective moral philosophies provide objective guidance rooted in knowledge of human nature, rather than merely systematizing existing mores or reading them into human nature. Accordingly, I close with a discussion of the objectivity of what each thinker regards as moral knowledge.

13,600 words/45 minutes

-- CAV

Tough (Nerd) Love for a 'Manosphere' Victim

With my kids rapidly approaching dating age and being well aware that I might well be a poor source of advice on it, I keep an antenna out for advice on that matter.

A favorite writer who focuses on such advice is Harris O'Malley, a.k.a., Dr. Nerdlove, and he hit one out of the park earlier this year when someone who listens to the likes of Andrew Tate showed up with a question to the effect of, "Help, science says I'm doomed to be single!"

I really appreciate two things about his letter, the first of them being what is really an all-purpose calling-out of people who wrongly claim that "science" backs them up:

Leaving aside that this leads me to think that the source was a study from Dude, Trust Me University or Dr. ChatGPT, the rare times that people do post a particular study, it becomes clear that they didn't actually read it beyond someone else's summary. The conclusions people derive tend to have very little to do with the study's conclusions and usually involves either overlooking the way the data is misunderstood, small sample sizes, poor-to-non-existent controls, self-report surveys, the authors saying "the results are within the margin of error and so are indicative of more experimentation" and occasional straight up P-hacking.

This he follows up with an intelligent discussion of -- gasp! -- an actual paper written by actual scientists.

But O'Malley isn't done, because the question betrays a deeper problem than ignorance about science.

There is also an astounding degree of ignorance about oneself by the questioner that can't be answered except by introspection, which Dr. Nerdlove successfully points out and motivates, assuming the letter writer really is interested in finding female companionship:

Ah, because it means that -- if we accept your premise -- you are "stuck" dating someone who is also of average looks. Let's put aside the assumption that this somehow means that the "average" women are not good looking and instead focus on what you don't seem to realize that you're saying.

Because I don't think it has occurred to you that, as you're complaining that your looks condemn you to date someone who isn't exceptional looking ... you're expecting someone who is exceptional looking to be willing to overlook your average appearance. Not to put too fine a point on it but ... why is that ok for them but not for you? Why are you asking them to give you grace and see beyond your average appearance, when you aren't willing to do the same? Why -- again, if we accept your premise -- is it not ok for an exceptionally attractive woman to prefer dating an exceptionally attractive man, when you yourself also want to date an exceptionally attractive woman? You would think that what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Well, the answer here is obvious: because of what it says about you. This is the core of what Red Pill and masculinity influencers peddle: the anxiety of being somehow "lesser" among men. If you are the sort of person who can "only" date "average" women and not dimes who make your friends and peers and randos jealous ... well, clearly you're not a Top G Alpha Player. You're just some Average Frustrated Chump, to dip back into ancient PUA parlance.

While I would hope that no child of mine ends up being this clueless, I remember being a child and a young adult. Introspection and seeing things from the perspective of others are learned skills, and many aspects of our culture discourage both.

Being aware of the latest ways people are being pressured to conform can't hurt, and this example clearly shows both that real adults aren't what Ayn Rand called second-handers, and that being second-handed is hardly the way to achieve happiness. Only by knowing oneself, and respecting the fact that relationships involve shared values can one really hope to find or be worthy of a romantic partner.

-- CAV